On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:21:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Mark Jerde wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mark Jerde wrote

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

Oil change every 1500 miles
Adjust valves every 6000 miles.
Decarbonize every 25000 miles OR
Valve job every 30,000 miles.
Rings and bearings at about 50,000 miles.
Spark plugs and points every 12000 miles.
Adjust timing and carb about the same time.
rebuild the carb every 30,000 miles or 3 years.
Adjust the choke twice a year (if in cold winter areas)
replace generator brushes every 12000 miles.
Replace engine main seals every 50,000 miles
Replace ball joints and shocks every 2 years
rebuild brake cyls every 3 years.
replace exhaust aprox every 18 months.
replace rad hoses and fan belts roughly every 2 years.

If the body lasted five years without rust-through you were doing well
indeed. (here in the salty great white north)
A paint job was good for about 5 years, and a ten year old car was
JUNK.
A car with 100,000 miles on it was a rarity (160,000 km) Today 240,000
km is "nicely broken in" and 350,000km is not out of the ordinary. -
and that's without even opening the engine - all the original factory
gaskes/sealant still in place in many cases.
Of course, there are MANY that never make it, due to abuse, neglect,
poor design - but a VERY FEW back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s made
100,000 miles without some MAJOR repair, and a LOT of maintenance.

Leaded fuel was a large part of the cause, engine-wise.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

TMT

Rod Speed wrote:
b wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take
the chassis out the plastic wont support the CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is attached to.

....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

Guess who has just got egg all over its face, as always ?

So progress is both good and bad.

Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish.

Nope.

Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the
bulk of sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in TVs

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, PROGRESS.

Failed electros have been around ever since they were invented.

and set top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat,
(or just poor or poorly rated components),

**** all of those fail. No point in looking in repair shops, they only see the
failures. What matters is the percentage of failures. And that is very low.

PCs in spades.

transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat sinks,

You dont see much of that either.

vcrs with plastic parts breaking,

They always did.

mobile phones and mp3 players with defective jacks and buttons etc etc.

**** all of those too.

What we have are many more features than before. and at
cheaper price, and often in smaller machines so there is progress
in that sense, but build quality and longevity are WELL down,

Bull****.

coincidentally along with parts support

Because they dont fail much anymore.

and repairability,

Because they dont fail much anymore.

which means more failure,

No it doesnt. The lack of repairability often means increased reliability
most obviously with sealed plugpacks and moulded power cords.

more landfill material.

Thats mostly due to changed tastes like with CRT
monitors that work fine being replaced with LCDs etc.

As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned
obsolescence, just a desire for increased sales and profits

Its actually a desire for competitive pricing which does sometimes
see the designer getting too carried away doing that.

(which any business aspires to) and a lack of regard for the environment,

The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway.

playing on the ignorance of consumers about the
REAL cost of all this replace not repair mentality.

There is no 'playing on', its the consumers who have decided that
with new stuff so cheap, it makes absolutely no sense whatever
to pay an expensive first world tech to repair something like a
VCR when a new one would cost less and have a full warranty.

No one would actually be that stupid.


You haven't dealt with the finance people I have....they are.

Cost point is EVERYTHING (it determines the CEO's bonus) so any and all
decisions revolve around it.

Companies will gladly produce junk if the consumer will buy it...and
they do.

Again, reference Walmart and their success selling crap.

Oh...did I mention that Walmart is the nation's largest seller of
electronics.

TMT

Rod Speed wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets
that wont take cards. Thats always going to be a design ****up or
manufacturing ****up.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.

You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent" or "intentional".

You dont.

An act is intentional if its outcome is known.

Wrong. That act was intentional if they were intending
to make the card pockets too small to take cards.

No one would actually be that stupid.

The problem must have been with the manufacturing process
that was used after the intention to produce a usable wallet.

So if tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards,
or a tea kettle with obviously inadequate hinges -- the
outcome is known and that is, therefore, an intentional outcome.

Wrong. No one would be stupid enough to deliberately make
the wallet with card pockets that couldnt have cards put in them.

You dont know that anyone intended the tea kettle hinge to break either.

Its MUCH more likely that they decided that the amount of plastic
used was adequate and that it wouldnt break, and that they got that
wrong, or a weaker plastic was used without realising that it would break.

Sorry to disappoint you Rod but I do just as Ig does....Walmart gets as
little of my money as I can make happen.

Our opinion is shared by many others....been paying attention to the
decline of Walmart's profits lately?

Be sure to look when you walk by Walmart headquarters....I wouldn't
want you to get hit by a falling executive.

TMT

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

If they know what happens with their product -- and they do -- then it
IS intentional.

If I set a fire on my kitchen floor, hoping to cook a pig that would
not fit in a stove, knowing that my house would burn down, and the
house burns down, the result is intentional -- even though the fire
was started to cook a pig. Same here -- if they try to save 2 cents
and make products that they KNOW do not perform their intended
purpose, then making substandard products is intentional on their
part.

That's why I do not patronize cutthroat retailers such as Walmart.
Because they are looking to screw ME by selling products that do not
perform their intended purpose (and by forcing manufacturers to make
such via abusive methods). I do not like such capitalists and to not
want to give them any of my business. I would rather pay 3x more to
businesses such as McMaster-Carr, or Bosch, etc, to get a product that
actually works.

My experience with Harbor Freight has been spotty, but most of the
products that I bought from them, do work as advertised.

i

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:50:15 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
PS...if anyone has the answer about why one of my Sunbeam self-lowering
toasters doesn't want to stop toasting without pulling the plug (aka
which part is the thermostat?)...let me know It's not my primary
Sunbeam...just one I might need to use some day.

There's a way to adjust them which differs depending on the model. If
it has the darkness knob on the side, you can pull off the knob and
rotate the shaft until it has the correct darkness. If it has a
slider on the front, there is a small hole in the right side where the
sub-darkness screw adjustment is located.

Andy Cuffe

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

The trouble is that there is no easy to way get a real handle on what
products on offer will last significantly longer with most appliances.

And its arguable how many really care that much about that sort of
thing now with the appliances so cheap and so trivially affordable.

When all stores sell the same items and no salesperson can convince the
consumer that any given product is better than all of the rest people will
choose the cheapest.







--

There is SOME progress
being made - but the imposition of a $10 disposal fee at the consumer
level has ended up with all kinds of monitors etc being dumped beside
the road.

Wrong approach.

Pay the consumer $10 for proper disposal and the roadside dumping will
disappear over night.

As I said, the disposal is being charged against the consumer at the
end of life of the product...in time the politicians will get it right
and charge for it at the beginning of the product sale.

TMT

clare wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:12:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.

LOL...you mean an industry that has so far been
able to dump long term costs on the public.

There is no practical alternative, like I said.

The public certainly isnt going to wear 'environmental'
fools proclaiming that they cant have modern electronic
devices because of some purported long term costs.

And what long term costs there are are completely trivial
compared with the long term costs of the food industry
alone, let alone the car industry, etc etc etc anyway.

BS.
When we're finished with food it is "totally recycled"
Yes, there is the transportation, but disposal of the end of life
product is not a terribly serious issue.

With cars, they are over 95% recycleable - and they ARE recycled.
Tires are aproblem, but advances are being made there.
With electronics, it all ends up in landfill. There is SOME progress
being made - but the imposition of a $10 disposal fee at the consumer
level has ended up with all kinds of monitors etc being dumped beside
the road. Overall, significantly less than FIVE PERCENT of all
consumer electronics devices are recycled, or properly disposed of.
Less than ONE PERCENT of replaceable, non rechargeable batteries are
responsibly disposed of.
Well over NINETY PERCENT of automotive batteries are recycles and
responsibly disposed of.

When you see electronics being dumped in Africa
to avoid the cost of disposal, I think we are seeing
the responsibility coming home to roost soon.

Nope, all you are actually seeing is the inevitable
result of terminally silly 'environmental' legislation.

And when the cost of disposal is finally taken into account,
the true cost of electronics will be adjusted for that disposal.

Just utterly silly pointless paper shuffling.

It can't come soon enough....

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

Its only the europeans that are actually stupid enough to
even attempt something like that. And even they arent
actually stupid enough to do much in that area anyway.
Because even the stupidest politician realises what the
electoral consequences of that would inevitably be.

They'd be out on their arses so fast their feet wouldnt even touch the ground.


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

There's been various attempts over the years at marketing
easily upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you
were ready to upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was
a sizable portion of the cost of a whole new PC, as well as
the rest of the major components were showing their age.

The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the
true cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

Fantasy. And the cost is ALWAYS borne by the public, regardless of
how the company may be slugged by hare brained penalty schemes
anyway.

We keep hearing how the economy of electronics lowers the
cost of a product but one of the greatest costs to society is the
cost of production, distribution and disposal of electronic items.

They are a tiny part of the total production
distribution and disposal costs of everything else.

Even just food alone leaves it for dead.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because
it is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's
hardly that the manufacturers are making things so they will
break. The consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how
many cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last
"long enough". It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're
supplying what the average consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it
would have been way out of range in terms of price. Because
they'd have to anticipate how much things would change, and build
in enough so upgrading would be doable. So you'd spend money on
potential, rather than spending money later on a new computer
that would beat out what they could imagine in 1979. And in
recent years, it is the consumer who is deciding to buy a new
computer every few years (whether a deliberate decision or they
simply let the manufacturer lead, must vary from person to
person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the
cost of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components
were showing their age.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sorry but I did not mention what education background I have....none of
your business. ;)

The cost of handling a product would be factored into the original sale
price...and the company producing it would be liable for disposal.

And yeah...I know you don't like that answer...no one including
Corporate America likes being held accountable for their actions.

TMT

dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

...
The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the true
cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

You said somewhere else you had an education in economics, but it
certainly doesn't seem to show.

Even if you could somehow come up with this mystical "true cost of a
computer" to tax the manufacturer for, where but from the eventual
customer would "the company" have to generate this revenue? And,
having done so, what else could happen but to raise the cost to "the
public"?

Of course, the employer pays that 6.25% FICA tax, too.

On 16 Jan 2007 18:00:52 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

There is SOME progress
being made - but the imposition of a $10 disposal fee at the consumer
level has ended up with all kinds of monitors etc being dumped beside
the road.

Wrong approach.

Pay the consumer $10 for proper disposal and the roadside dumping will
disappear over night.
Correct. Definitely.

As I said, the disposal is being charged against the consumer at the
end of life of the product...in time the politicians will get it right
and charge for it at the beginning of the product sale.

TMT

clare wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:12:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.

LOL...you mean an industry that has so far been
able to dump long term costs on the public.

There is no practical alternative, like I said.

The public certainly isnt going to wear 'environmental'
fools proclaiming that they cant have modern electronic
devices because of some purported long term costs.

And what long term costs there are are completely trivial
compared with the long term costs of the food industry
alone, let alone the car industry, etc etc etc anyway.

BS.
When we're finished with food it is "totally recycled"
Yes, there is the transportation, but disposal of the end of life
product is not a terribly serious issue.

With cars, they are over 95% recycleable - and they ARE recycled.
Tires are aproblem, but advances are being made there.
With electronics, it all ends up in landfill. There is SOME progress
being made - but the imposition of a $10 disposal fee at the consumer
level has ended up with all kinds of monitors etc being dumped beside
the road. Overall, significantly less than FIVE PERCENT of all
consumer electronics devices are recycled, or properly disposed of.
Less than ONE PERCENT of replaceable, non rechargeable batteries are
responsibly disposed of.
Well over NINETY PERCENT of automotive batteries are recycles and
responsibly disposed of.

When you see electronics being dumped in Africa
to avoid the cost of disposal, I think we are seeing
the responsibility coming home to roost soon.

Nope, all you are actually seeing is the inevitable
result of terminally silly 'environmental' legislation.

And when the cost of disposal is finally taken into account,
the true cost of electronics will be adjusted for that disposal.

Just utterly silly pointless paper shuffling.

It can't come soon enough....

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

Its only the europeans that are actually stupid enough to
even attempt something like that. And even they arent
actually stupid enough to do much in that area anyway.
Because even the stupidest politician realises what the
electoral consequences of that would inevitably be.

They'd be out on their arses so fast their feet wouldnt even touch the ground.


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

There's been various attempts over the years at marketing
easily upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you
were ready to upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was
a sizable portion of the cost of a whole new PC, as well as
the rest of the major components were showing their age.

The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the
true cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

Fantasy. And the cost is ALWAYS borne by the public, regardless of
how the company may be slugged by hare brained penalty schemes
anyway.

We keep hearing how the economy of electronics lowers the
cost of a product but one of the greatest costs to society is the
cost of production, distribution and disposal of electronic items.

They are a tiny part of the total production
distribution and disposal costs of everything else.

Even just food alone leaves it for dead.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because
it is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's
hardly that the manufacturers are making things so they will
break. The consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how
many cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last
"long enough". It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're
supplying what the average consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it
would have been way out of range in terms of price. Because
they'd have to anticipate how much things would change, and build
in enough so upgrading would be doable. So you'd spend money on
potential, rather than spending money later on a new computer
that would beat out what they could imagine in 1979. And in
recent years, it is the consumer who is deciding to buy a new
computer every few years (whether a deliberate decision or they
simply let the manufacturer lead, must vary from person to
person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the
cost of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components
were showing their age.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Same thing with CD ROM drives.
I sold many of the first CD ROM drives sold in Canada. We are talking
1985 ish. That's TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO. Some of those drives are still
fully functional.
Today's crop don't last 5 years (actually, that's YESTERDAY's crop.)
I'm replacing 2 year old "brand name" CD drives quite regularly.


I agree...I see it all the time.

The funny thing is people in the know are looking for the old CD drives
because of their reliability.

Unfortunately that means a company will not sell a new unit. sob..sob

TMT
clare wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 10:47:07 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Logan, I respect your opinion but ...

That seems a pet phrase, doesn't it? It would ring a lot less
hollow if you would show some sign that you're paying any attention or
thinking before spouting your rhetoric back, however...


It would seem that you are a stranger to good manners...and would not
know the truth if it bit you on the butt.

The current DVD sales are a typical case of market dumping...happens
all the time.

Get back to me in a few years and let's talk about how many DVD sets
are being trashed because of failures.

Ask any repair person how the quality of VHS players have declined over
the years...the same goes with DVD units. I have some older DVD units
that cost serious money and their internal design is excellent. The
newer units are built with intended obselescene in mind...in other
words they are built like crap. Guess which ones will be running a few
years from now? You might want to check the numbers on returns of DOA
units also....many of the currently cheap units don't work out of the
box.

And oh...one more thing...are you posting from China?

Same thing with CD ROM drives.
I sold many of the first CD ROM drives sold in Canada. We are talking
1985 ish. That's TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO. Some of those drives are still
fully functional.
Today's crop don't last 5 years (actually, that's YESTERDAY's crop.)
I'm replacing 2 year old "brand name" CD drives quite regularly.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rod Speed wrote:

('bull****'s and other similarly intellectual retorts snipped)

The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway.

you have missed the real point here. You are also very rude.

Homer J Simpson wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I'm calling you out on that one. Perhaps if all the brands and
manufacturers of appliances were consolidated so much that they had
to be in cahoots, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but your
appliances are built all over the world now, by a variety of
companies competing hard for your business, not just once, but again
and again, and that means that one company with a good product will
never say a word to a competitor about how they do a better job. I
certainly wouldn't, and the way to make money in appliances is to
build a better product that gives the customer the value for the
dollar they are willing to pay. Folks that want a top of the line
appliance will pay extra for the appearance of better quality, and if
it can be proved they're getting their money's worth, they'll spend
even more. What it costs me when a product fails, wastes my time, and
the hassle and frustration of resolving the situation, means far more
to me than the initial cost of a product. I've paid that price too
many times, as I'm sure we all have at one time or another, so back
to the point of the most bang for my buck is why companies competing
for my precious dollar will not conspire with each other. All it
takes is for one of them to refuse to conspire and the conspirators
lose, leaving that one to earn my money.

The trouble is that there is no easy to way get a real handle on what
products on offer will last significantly longer with most appliances.

And its arguable how many really care that much about that sort of
thing now with the appliances so cheap and so trivially affordable.

When all stores sell the same items

That doesnt happen with the cheapest crap.

and no salesperson can convince the consumer that any given product is better than all of the rest
people will choose the cheapest.

Plenty have better sources of info than just the sales monkey.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of years.

Engineering data is the heart of a business.

Not data thats a handful of years old.

Management often forgets that.

Then a competitor eats them alive.

Bet you cant list any examples of that with
data thats older than a handful of years old.

I sure can.

Nope, you couldnt.

I milwright designs a feed mill. Back in 1966. He rebuilds that mill in
1981. He builds 5 more mills between those dates, and onother 12 since.

His office burns down and he loses all his engineering drawings.

You cant use a single design over all that time.

Tell that to the guys that build the elevator portion of the mill.

Pity about the rest of the mill.

All the pipe transitions etc. have been standardized for many
years by these guys. They designed something that works, that
is relatively simple to build, and they just keep right on using it.

There is more involved than just the pipe transitions etc.

or the drawings get soaked when a pipe breaks. How much
were those engineering drawings from 1965 worth today?
Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Fantasy. You cant use a single fixed design over all that time.

Another firm with current engineering drawings
will eat him alive when a new mill is up for tender.
That's why he invests in a large format scanner and enters ALL the
old drawings into cad, at very high cost, and keeps 2 offsite
backups.

Or take a land surveyor's office.
ALL the surveys done in the past 35+ years are kept onsite, and
many are referred to daily to tie in new surveys etc. What would it
cost to regenerate even a small fraction of those survey plans?
What is their current value??? Significantly higher than the
original cost to produce the survey.

Adequately covered by his original MOST.


Anthony Matonak wrote:
John Husvar wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:
Archival storage of data is a BIG deal that the industry
doesn't like to talk about.

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of
years.

Well, I suppose one could print and store all all the data
records on acid-free paper and then physically go find the ones
they wanted. Shouldn't take more than a medium-sized army of
clerks and only a small hollowed mountain range for the storage.

The absolute best storage is microfilm or some variant of it.
You're pretty much assured that no matter what happens with
technology that you'll still be able to read it, even decades
later. You can buy computer microfilm printers. Direct print
to microfilm, no developing required.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:19:06 -0800, SMS wrote:
Commercial vacuum cleaners are actually a good deal because the
consumer-grade vacuum cleaners are extremely poorly constructed. But too
many people select a vacuum based on how much current the motor draws,
and how many buttons and attachments it has, instead of how well it
cleans and how long it will last.

Would you recommend a particular commercial vacuum cleaner?

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Sorry but I did not mention what education background I have....none of
your business. ;)

The cost of handling a product would be factored into the original sale
price...and the company producing it would be liable for disposal.

Yeah, that was Iggy, but maybe you should look into it...

How could you possibly even approximately compute a realistic future
cost of handling any given product a priori, what more actually make it
reflect some "true" cost?

Previously you spoke of transportation as some over-arching cost of
consumer electronics, but whatever cost there is for it is already
incorporated at the retail point, obviously. So, when costs are
lowered to the end user by the use of integration and other modern
manufacturing techniques and lower overhead costs even after costs of
transportation and distribution are included, it simply means the
actual manufacturing cost itself is even lower than it appears. Again,
there's the efficiency of numbers -- it doesn't cost much more
incrementally to ship a carload of an item than it does a single one.

As for the disposal, the consumer already pays for disposal of the
items he discards through a variety of mechanisms--taxes, user fees,
private collection fees, etc., etc., etc., ... As noted previously,
various locations have already begun accounting for large and or
otherwise difficult-to-dispose-of items. This trend will undoubtedly
continue and will be far more efficient than a "one size fits all"
attempt could ever be.

As (and/or if) materials become more valuable, there will certainly be
more recycling as it becomes economically viable. The only reason at
present it isn't more prevalent is that it is not cost-effective. When
there is economic incentive, it will happen--until then, despite all
well-intentioned pleas in the world, it just won't.

You may not like that answer, but it's more reflective of reality...

Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

"The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded
electronic devices are a trivial part of the total waste and
manufacturing stream and the environmental downsides
are back in china with the manufacturing anyway. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.


LOL...sure they will.

That must be why they are going from country to country dumping toxic
waste until they get chased out.

Or why they have been forced to go to lead free solder.

The free ride the electronics industry has been getting is coming to an
end.

And with it is the age of artificially cheap electronics...

TMT


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

"The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded
electronic devices are a trivial part of the total waste and
manufacturing stream and the environmental downsides
are back in china with the manufacturing anyway. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.


Rod Speed wrote:
b wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take
the chassis out the plastic wont support the CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is
attached to.

....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

Guess who has just got egg all over its face, as always ?

So progress is both good and bad.

Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish.

Nope.

Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the
bulk of sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in
TVs

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, PROGRESS.

Failed electros have been around ever since they were invented.

and set top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat,
(or just poor or poorly rated components),

**** all of those fail. No point in looking in repair shops, they
only see the failures. What matters is the percentage of failures.
And that is very low.

PCs in spades.

transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat sinks,

You dont see much of that either.

vcrs with plastic parts breaking,

They always did.

mobile phones and mp3 players with defective jacks and buttons etc
etc.

**** all of those too.

What we have are many more features than before. and at
cheaper price, and often in smaller machines so there is progress
in that sense, but build quality and longevity are WELL down,

Bull****.

coincidentally along with parts support

Because they dont fail much anymore.

and repairability,

Because they dont fail much anymore.

which means more failure,

No it doesnt. The lack of repairability often means increased
reliability most obviously with sealed plugpacks and moulded power
cords.

more landfill material.

Thats mostly due to changed tastes like with CRT
monitors that work fine being replaced with LCDs etc.

As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned
obsolescence, just a desire for increased sales and profits

Its actually a desire for competitive pricing which does sometimes
see the designer getting too carried away doing that.

(which any business aspires to) and a lack of regard for the
environment,

The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway.

playing on the ignorance of consumers about the
REAL cost of all this replace not repair mentality.

There is no 'playing on', its the consumers who have decided that
with new stuff so cheap, it makes absolutely no sense whatever
to pay an expensive first world tech to repair something like a
VCR when a new one would cost less and have a full warranty.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

That must be why they are going from country to country dumping toxic
waste until they get chased out.

Or why they have been forced to go to lead free solder.

The free ride the electronics industry has been getting is coming to an
end.

And with it is the age of artificially cheap electronics...

TMT

There is a plant being built in Florida just to recycle electronic parts.
It is becoming profitable on some level. There is certainly enough "raw
material" to be had.

Too_Many_Tools wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

"The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded
electronic devices are a trivial part of the total waste and
manufacturing stream and the environmental downsides
are back in china with the manufacturing anyway. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.

LOL...sure they will.

Laughing like a village eejut changes nothing.

That must be why they are going from country to
country dumping toxic waste until they get chased out.

Just another of you silly little fantasys. Doesnt happen
with the discarded consumer electronics being discussed.

Or why they have been forced to go to lead free solder.

Pity nothing special is required when disposing of the old stuff.

The free ride the electronics industry has been getting is coming to an end.

Fantasy.

And with it is the age of artificially cheap electronics...

Nothing artifical about it and if you really do believe that the
age of cheap electronics is about to end, you've just proved
that you've never had a clue about anything at all, ever.


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

"The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded
electronic devices are a trivial part of the total waste and
manufacturing stream and the environmental downsides
are back in china with the manufacturing anyway. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.


Rod Speed wrote:
b wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take
the chassis out the plastic wont support the CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is
attached to.

....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

Guess who has just got egg all over its face, as always ?

So progress is both good and bad.

Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish.

Nope.

Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the
bulk of sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in
TVs

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, PROGRESS.

Failed electros have been around ever since they were invented.

and set top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat,
(or just poor or poorly rated components),

**** all of those fail. No point in looking in repair shops, they
only see the failures. What matters is the percentage of failures.
And that is very low.

PCs in spades.

transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat sinks,

You dont see much of that either.

vcrs with plastic parts breaking,

They always did.

mobile phones and mp3 players with defective jacks and buttons etc
etc.

**** all of those too.

What we have are many more features than before. and at
cheaper price, and often in smaller machines so there is progress
in that sense, but build quality and longevity are WELL down,

Bull****.

coincidentally along with parts support

Because they dont fail much anymore.

and repairability,

Because they dont fail much anymore.

which means more failure,

No it doesnt. The lack of repairability often means increased
reliability most obviously with sealed plugpacks and moulded power
cords.

more landfill material.

Thats mostly due to changed tastes like with CRT
monitors that work fine being replaced with LCDs etc.

As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned
obsolescence, just a desire for increased sales and profits

Its actually a desire for competitive pricing which does sometimes
see the designer getting too carried away doing that.

(which any business aspires to) and a lack of regard for the
environment,

The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway.

playing on the ignorance of consumers about the
REAL cost of all this replace not repair mentality.

There is no 'playing on', its the consumers who have decided that
with new stuff so cheap, it makes absolutely no sense whatever
to pay an expensive first world tech to repair something like a
VCR when a new one would cost less and have a full warranty.

Ignoramus18435 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:19:06 -0800, SMS wrote:
Commercial vacuum cleaners are actually a good deal because the
consumer-grade vacuum cleaners are extremely poorly constructed. But too
many people select a vacuum based on how much current the motor draws,
and how many buttons and attachments it has, instead of how well it
cleans and how long it will last.

Would you recommend a particular commercial vacuum cleaner?

I have a 10 year old Panasonic that I like. I can't comment on the other
commercial vacuums, but I expect that they are equally good.

I've had this Panasonic while my relatives have gone through a
succession of el-junko Eureka and Hoover consumer models.

"http://web1.panasonic.com/food_service/cmo/prod_info/vacuum.html"

The closest is probably the MC-V5210.

Look at the Eureka C5712A from Costco.com.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As I said, the disposal is being charged against the consumer at the
end of life of the product...in time the politicians will get it right
and charge for it at the beginning of the product sale.

They are starting to do this in some states. In California, there are
fees for displays. It's working a lot better than trying to charge
people at the time of disposal. You can now dispose of CRTs, LCDs,
Plasma screens, etc., at no charge at time of disposal.

The amount of eWaste is staggering, but we've been externalizing it by
shipping it to third-world countries.

I spent a lot of time on RoHS compliance. At least it was phased in over
several years, so it wasn't as disruptive as many companies claimed that
it would be.

SMS wrote:
Ecnerwal wrote:

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies
in 8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing
the way for more new car sales.

What's driving the production of hybrid cars is government policy. Tax
credits, and allowing hybrids to use carpool lanes is a powerful
incentive. Some people buy them because of a belief that they pollute
less, though in reality this is not the case.

I forgot to mention, it's not just government policies that drive hybrid
sales, some employers also give credits to employees. I was wondering
why I saw so many Priuses over by Google in Mountain View, then a friend
that works there told me that Google was giving $5000 to employees that
bought a Prius. I think that it's now $3000, as it proved to be so popular.

There is an article about the public and private promotion of hybrids at
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202067,00.html"

Few people would buy hybrids without the perks of single-HOV use, or the
financial credits. The long-term cost of a hybrid is higher than
equivalent non-hybrid vehicles, given the added initial cost, and the
maintenance, though most people don't keep their cars long enough to
have to deal with the big-ticket hybrid maintenance items.

Ironically, the single-HOV use encourages hybrid use on freeways, where
there is no fuel efficiency advantage, plus the HOV lanes are often now
only marginally faster than the non-HOV lanes due to all the single
drivers in the HOV lanes.

Mark Jerde wrote:
Your thoughts?

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.

Nah, the drugstores all had self-service tube testers and sold tubes.
You opened your TV, put a little numbered sticker on each tube and on
each socket, and took the tubes down and tested them. They had a little
pamphlet that let you match up the symptom to the proper tube if you
didn't want to take out all the tubes.

- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a "Service
Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)
- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

This is true. Amusingly, you still have some car owners that believe
that they need to change their oil every 3000 miles, just like back in
the days of non-detergent motor oils.

Don't forget the much more frequent plug replacement, replacing the
distributor cap, rotor, and condenser, and setting the timing and dwell.

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

At least for cars and televisions.

Alan wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:58:15 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Mark Jerde wrote:
Your thoughts?
I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
Nah, the drugstores all had self-service tube testers and sold tubes.
You opened your TV, put a little numbered sticker on each tube and on
each socket, and took the tubes down and tested them. They had a little
pamphlet that let you match up the symptom to the proper tube if you
didn't want to take out all the tubes.

- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a "Service
Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)
- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.
This is true. Amusingly, you still have some car owners that believe
that they need to change their oil every 3000 miles, just like back in
the days of non-detergent motor oils.

Especially since normal city driving is, according to your
owner's manual "extreme service" and they recommend you
change your oil every 3,000 miles. . . .

First of all, many car makers are using 5000 miles for extreme service,
and 7500 for normal service. Some have service indicators that take into
account actual driving and environmental factors in determining the
proper oil change interval. Often the shorter intervals are to
compensate for poorly designed engines that burn a lot of oil, so the
manufacturer can claim that the vehicle burns no oil between changes.

Second, normal city driving is rarely considered "extreme" service.
Extreme service is more than just stop and go driving, it's all stop and
go driving and short trips, it's driving in extreme heat, or in very
dusty areas. There's a big effort by the oil change industry to convince
owners that almost everyone falls into severe or extreme service. It's
resulted in a lot of "recreational oil changes" that do nothing to
lengthen the service life of the engine.

For Toyota:

* Driving on rough, muddy or snow-melted roads.
* Driving on dusty roads.
* Towing trailers, caravans or boats.
* Repeated short trips (less than 8 km) in freezing conditions.
* Extensive idling and or low speed driving for long distance such as
taxis, couriers, etc.
* Continuous high speed driving (80% or more at maximum vehicle speed)
for over 2 hours.

For Ford
* Towing a trailer or using a camper or car-top carrier
* Extensive idling and/or low-speed driving for long distances as in
heavy commercial use such as delivery, taxi, patrol car or livery
* Operating in dusty conditions such as unpaved or dusty roads
* Off-road operation
* Use of E85 50% of the time or greater (flex fuel vehicles only)

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:52:57 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote:

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies in
8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing the
way for more new car sales.

What's driving the production of hybrid cars is government policy. Tax
credits, and allowing hybrids to use carpool lanes is a powerful
incentive. Some people buy them because of a belief that they pollute
less, though in reality this is not the case.

I don't think that anyone buys a hybrid thinking that they're going to
save money on fuel, versus the extra initial cost, and shorter service life.
In town traffic, a hybrid (toyota or honda design) DO polute less
because they never idle.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:07:05 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Alan wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:58:15 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Mark Jerde wrote:
Your thoughts?
I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
Nah, the drugstores all had self-service tube testers and sold tubes.
You opened your TV, put a little numbered sticker on each tube and on
each socket, and took the tubes down and tested them. They had a little
pamphlet that let you match up the symptom to the proper tube if you
didn't want to take out all the tubes.

- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a "Service
Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)
- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.
This is true. Amusingly, you still have some car owners that believe
that they need to change their oil every 3000 miles, just like back in
the days of non-detergent motor oils.

Especially since normal city driving is, according to your
owner's manual "extreme service" and they recommend you
change your oil every 3,000 miles. . . .

First of all, many car makers are using 5000 miles for extreme service,
and 7500 for normal service. Some have service indicators that take into
account actual driving and environmental factors in determining the
proper oil change interval. Often the shorter intervals are to
compensate for poorly designed engines that burn a lot of oil, so the
manufacturer can claim that the vehicle burns no oil between changes.

Second, normal city driving is rarely considered "extreme" service.
Extreme service is more than just stop and go driving, it's all stop and
go driving and short trips, it's driving in extreme heat, or in very
dusty areas. There's a big effort by the oil change industry to convince
owners that almost everyone falls into severe or extreme service. It's
resulted in a lot of "recreational oil changes" that do nothing to
lengthen the service life of the engine.

For Toyota:

* Driving on rough, muddy or snow-melted roads.
* Driving on dusty roads.
* Towing trailers, caravans or boats.
* Repeated short trips (less than 8 km) in freezing conditions.
* Extensive idling and or low speed driving for long distance such as
taxis, couriers, etc.
* Continuous high speed driving (80% or more at maximum vehicle speed)
for over 2 hours.

For Ford
* Towing a trailer or using a camper or car-top carrier
* Extensive idling and/or low-speed driving for long distances as in
heavy commercial use such as delivery, taxi, patrol car or livery
* Operating in dusty conditions such as unpaved or dusty roads
* Off-road operation
* Use of E85 50% of the time or greater (flex fuel vehicles only)

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our area)
to be "severe service".. For my vehicles, and the vast majority of my
customers' vehicles while I was service manager, this was the case.
Trated as such, virtually non of my customers' cars had any problems
that could remotely be attributed to poor lubrication.

Can't say that for all those who argued the point and stuck to the
"normal conditions" schedule. Some got lucky, but certainly not the
majority.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
SMS wrote
Alan wrote
SMS wrote
Mark Jerde wrote

Your thoughts?

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.

Nah, the drugstores all had self-service tube testers and sold
tubes. You opened your TV, put a little numbered sticker on each
tube and on each socket, and took the tubes down and tested them.
They had a little pamphlet that let you match up the symptom to
the proper tube if you didn't want to take out all the tubes.

- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a
"Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant*
service.) - 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

This is true. Amusingly, you still have some car owners that
believe that they need to change their oil every 3000 miles,
just like back in the days of non-detergent motor oils.

Especially since normal city driving is, according
to your owner's manual "extreme service" and they
recommend you change your oil every 3,000 miles. . . .

First of all, many car makers are using 5000 miles for extreme
service, and 7500 for normal service. Some have service indicators
that take into account actual driving and environmental factors in
determining the proper oil change interval. Often the shorter
intervals are to compensate for poorly designed engines that burn a
lot of oil, so the manufacturer can claim that the vehicle burns no
oil between changes.

Second, normal city driving is rarely considered "extreme" service.
Extreme service is more than just stop and go driving, it's all stop
and go driving and short trips, it's driving in extreme heat, or in
very dusty areas. There's a big effort by the oil change industry to
convince owners that almost everyone falls into severe or extreme
service. It's resulted in a lot of "recreational oil changes" that
do nothing to lengthen the service life of the engine.

For Toyota:

* Driving on rough, muddy or snow-melted roads.
* Driving on dusty roads.
* Towing trailers, caravans or boats.
* Repeated short trips (less than 8 km) in freezing conditions.
* Extensive idling and or low speed driving for long distance such as taxis, couriers, etc.
* Continuous high speed driving (80% or more at maximum vehicle speed) for over 2 hours.

For Ford
* Towing a trailer or using a camper or car-top carrier
* Extensive idling and/or low-speed driving for long distances as in
heavy commercial use such as delivery, taxi, patrol car or livery
* Operating in dusty conditions such as unpaved or dusty roads
* Off-road operation
* Use of E85 50% of the time or greater (flex fuel vehicles only)

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our area)
to be "severe service".. For my vehicles, and the vast majority of my
customers' vehicles while I was service manager, this was the case.
Trated as such, virtually non of my customers' cars had any problems
that could remotely be attributed to poor lubrication.

You have no way of quantifying what would have happened
if they hadnt got 'severe service' oil change rates.

Can't say that for all those who argued the point and stuck to the "normal
conditions" schedule. Some got lucky, but certainly not the majority.

Bull****.

Rod Speed wrote:
wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

In my opinon...no.

I dont believe it happens in the sense that its actually possible
to design something to fail early and still have a viable product.

And there is plenty of stuff that clearly aint anything to do
with planned obsolescence at all. Most obviously with stuff
as basic as bread knives which are all metal. Those wont
even need to be replaced when the handle gives out.

And heaps of kitchen stuff is now stainless steel, which
will last forever compared with the older tinplate crap.

I intentionally try to have older appliances, vehicles, machines to
lower repair costs and keep overall ownership cost to a minimum.

Your thoughts?

Works fine with some things, but can bite. I just replaced
the switch in the vaccuum cleaner which is about 40 years
old. Cost peanuts and was very easy to find a new one.

The big 9¼" hand held circular saw that I built the house with
35 years ago has just seen the power switch fail and that is
no longer available from the manufacturer. Fortunately its
failed on so the saw is still usable tho more dangerous.
It uses blades with a 1?" hole. The current blades have
1" holes with washers which allow smaller shafts but no
easy way to use them on my old saw. There doesnt appear
to be any readily available source of different collets for that.

Just had the chain adjuster failed on a dirt cheap relatively
new electric chainsaw. I assumed that they wouldnt bother
to supply parts like that, but I was wrong, readily available
and in fact free. Clearly no planned obsolescence there.

And power tools are now so cheap that they are very viable
to buy even for just one job. I had to cut a copper pipe thats
buried in the ground and it costs peanuts to buy a very decent
jigsaw to cut it, just to avoid having to dig a bigger hole around
where I needed to cut it. Its been fine for other stuff since,
no evidence that its going to die any time soon. Could well get
40 years out of that too like I did with most of the power tools
that I used to build the house.

Cars in spades. I've just replaced my 35 year old car that I was
too stupid to fix the windscreen leak with which eventually produced
rust holes in the floor which wont pass our registration check.
While its possible to plate the holes, I cant be bothered, I intended
to drive that car into the ground and decided that that had happened.
No evidence that the replacement new car wont last as long. Its
certainly got more plastic, most obviously with the bumper bars that
the new one doesnt have, but that mostly due to modern crumple
zones, not due to planned obsolescence and might save my life etc.

People were raving on about planned obsolescence when
I built the house and I've had very little that has ever needed
replacement apart from basic stuff like light bulbs and the
occassional failure of stuff like elements in the oven etc.

More below.

Irreparable damage
By Bryce Baschuk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2007

Bill Jones, after 42 years, is finally closing the
Procter Appliance Service shop in Silver Spring.

That isnt planned obsolescence, thats the fact that its a
lot cheaper to pay a very low wage asian to make you
a new one than it ever is to pay a first world monkey to
repair your existing one with all but quite trivial faults.

"You can't make a good salary to survive on the way you
could years ago," said the 61-year-old owner of the oven,
refrigerator and washer-dryer repair shop. "Everything
has changed in the appliance business."

It has indeed, but not because of planned obsolescence.

Mr. Jones recently sold his home in Laurel and is in the
process of moving to Bluffton, S.C., with his wife, Jeannette.

Sob sob.

Mr. Jones is one of the many Washington-area repairmen who have
struggled to stay afloat as residents replace, not repair, old
appliances.

Because its generally better value to replace.

"It's a dying trade," said Scott Brown, Webmaster of
www.fixitnow.com
and self-proclaimed "Samurai Appliance Repairman."

Wota ****ing ******. Bet he doesnt disembowel himself when he ****s
up.

The reason for this is twofold, Mr. Brown said: The cost
of appliances is coming down because of cheap overseas
labor and improved manufacturing techniques,

So much for your silly line about planned obsolescence.

and repairmen are literally dying off.

They arent in other industrys that are still viable,
most obviously with cars and trucks and houses.

The average age of appliance technicians is 42, and there are few
young repairmen to take their place, said Mr. Brown, 47. He has
been repairing appliances in New Hampshire for the past 13 years.

He should have had a clue 13 years ago.
The writing was on the wall long before that.

In the next seven years, the number of veteran appliance
repairmen will decrease nationwide as current workers retire
or transfer to other occupations, the Department of Labor
said in its 2007 Occupational Outlook Handbook.

Must be rocket scientist shinybums.

The federal agency said many prospective repairmen prefer work
that is less strenuous and want more comfortable working conditions.

They actually prefer a decent income.

That claimed 'prefer work that is less strenuous and want more
comfortable working conditions' clearly hasnt affect car, truck or
house repair and the construction industry etc. Tho there will
always be some of that with a 5% unemployment rate.

Local repairmen said it is simply a question of economics.
"Nowadays appliances are cheap, so people are just getting new
ones,"

Yep, only a fool wouldnt if the new one costs about
the same as the cost of repairing the old one.

said Paul Singh, a manager at the Appliance Service Depot, a repair
shop in Northwest. "As a result, business has slowed down a lot."

"The average repair cost for a household appliance is $50 to
$350," said Shahid Rana, a service technician at Rana
Refrigeration, a repair shop in Capitol Heights. "If the repair is
going to cost more than
that, we usually tell the customer to go out and buy a new one."

Must be rocket scientist apes.

It's not uncommon for today's repairmen to condemn an appliance
instead of fixing it for the sake of their customers' wallets.

If they decide to repair an appliance that is likely to break
down again, repairmen are criticized by their customers
and often lose business because of a damaged reputation.

Mr. Jones said he based his repair decisions on the 50 percent
rule: "If the cost of service costs more than 50 percent of the
price
of a new machine, I'll tell my customers to get a new one."

What makes a lot more sense is to factor in the failure rate of that
appliance.

"A lot of customers want me to be honest with them, so I'll tell
them
my opinion and leave the decision making up to them," he said.

In recent years, consumers have tended to buy new
appliances when existing warranties expire rather than
repair old appliances, the Department of Labor said.

Hardly surprising given that they are now so cheap.

Mr. Brown acknowledged this trend. "Lower-end appliances which you
can buy for $200 to $300 are basically throwaway appliances," he
said. "They are so inexpensive that you shouldn't pay to get them
repaired." "The quality of the materials that are being made
aren't lasting,"

Pig ignorant silly stuff.

Mr. Jones said. "Nowadays you're seeing more plastic

I had some reservations about my 35 year old
dishwasher that does have a plastic liner. Its lasted fine.

and more circuit boards, and they aren't holding up."

Bull****.

Many home appliances sold in the United States
are made in Taiwan, Singapore, China and Mexico.

And now china.

"Nothing is made [in the United States] anymore," Mr. Jones said.
"But then again, American parts are only better to a point,
a lot of U.S. companies are all about the dollar."

Fortunately for the next generation of repairmen, some of today's
high-end appliances make service repairs the most cost-effective
option.

The Department of Labor concurred. "Over the next decade, as more
consumers purchase higher-priced appliances designed to have much
longer lives, they will be more likely to use repair services than
to purchase new appliances," said the 2007 Occupational Outlook
Handbook.

Bet that will have **** all effect on the employment prospects.

Modern, energy-efficient refrigerators
can cost as much as $5,000 to $10,000,

Pig ignorant drivel. You can buy plenty of modern energy efficient
fridges for a hell of a lot less than that. I've done just that a
month ago.

and with such a hefty price tag, throwing one away is not an option.

Bet the fools stupid enough to buy those will anyway.

In some cases, repairmen can help consumers reduce the
amount of aggravation that a broken appliance will cause.

Consider the time and effort it takes to shop for a new appliance,
wait for its delivery, remove the old one and get the new one
installed.

I did mine in 30 mins total, literally.

In addition, certain appliances such as ovens and
washing machines can be a bigger hassle to replace
because they are connected to gas and water lines.

Just changed washing machines over too, with a free
one I inherited. Changing the water over took minutes too.

"It takes your time, it takes your effort, and if you don't
install the new appliance, you'll have to hire a service
technician to install it anyways," Mr. Brown said.

Only the incompetant fools that cant change the washing machine over.

Some consumers bond with their appliances like old pets,
and for loyalty or sentimental reasons, refuse to let them go.

Mr. Rana said some of his clients have appliances that are
more than 30 years old. It makes sense, he said. "A lot of old
refrigerators are worth fixing because they give people good
service.

Wrong, those are normally lousy energy efficiency.

They just don't make things like they used to."

Yeah, they make them much better today energy efficiency wise.

And much better design wise too with the shelves and bins etc too.

did you know theres all qualitys of stainless, some will last literaLLY FOREVER

Yep, and all of my kitchen stainless will do that fine.

not so for kitchen stainless,

Wrong.

try a magnet on stainless the better quality is non magnetic

The magnetic stuff will last fine too with that use.

I have an Aiwa bookshelf stereo system which I bought new seven
years ago. One of the cassette decks developed a problem recently, so I
took it to a local repair shop. Left it there over a weekend, then went
back today to pick it up--unrepaired. One of the technicians told me I
had made a wise decision not to have it repaired because the thing is
so old (he also cited NLA--no longer available--parts for the cassette
deck and other parts of the system). I figured this way. I have most of
my CDs stored on my computer, which is hooked up to the stereo (sounds
much better than the stock speakers), and use Winamp (v5.32) to listen
to them. All I'm really using the stereo for now is as an amplifier, so
why should I spend more money than the system is probably worth to have
the cassette decks repaired? As it is, one deck will work but sometimes
jams; I can clear the problem in seconds--the thing works perfectly
once started. (I can always connect a Panasonic boombox with cassette
deck into my system if the one remaining deck quits altogether, so I'm
not concerned about it in the least.) The CD player still works great,
as does the AM/FM digital tuner. As long as the amplifiers work, I
won't put any more money into the system. Even if the amps do go
belly-up eventually, by that time the entire stereo will probably be so
old it won't be worth fixing, period. Then and only then will I
consider getting a new one. I've looked at some of the newest USB
stereos from Aiwa on their website (model BMZ-K1/BMZ-K2), and these
don't even have one cassette deck, let alone two. I think Aiwa, at
least, is realizing that cassettes are all but obsolete. Just watch.
Some day Aiwa, and every other manufacturer of compact audio systems,
will design their very newest systems to download mp3 files from the
Internet exclusively, perhaps with no CD players at all (the BMZ-K1/K2
systems have slot-in 5-CD changers). The BMZ-K1/K2 systems, with USB
ports, are the new generation of compact digital audio systems which
have no cassette decks--and the new ones are getting more sophisticated
all the time. (Other manufacturers are sure to follow suit shortly if
they haven't done so by now.) These -will- render today's digital and
analog bookshelf systems obsolete in no time, if they haven't already.

wrote:
"Jeff Jonas" wrote in message
...
The main thing I detest with modern products is keyboards. I used
to be able to buy proper double injection moulded keyboards in the
pre PC days but they arent even buyable now even with the branded
produces like Microsoft and Logitech and the stupid cheap stuck on
lettering never lasts very long at all.
I'm pleased to agree with that comment since it's on topic
and something that's near and dear to my heart.
I use my computer keyboard every day so it's not just an appliance,
it's a tool. It ought to fit my hand and operate reliably.
You'll have to pry my original IBM PS/2 space-saving keyboard
from my cold dead hands - I ain't giving' this up for anything!
The keys FEEL RIGHT and really click, not fake springs here!
It's survived a lot of pounding and frustration
and NONE of the keycap legends are smudged.
Only recently I noticed that the matte finish has rubbed off
the left shift key and the "A" key, making the surface smooth.
The keyboard has been in daily use for perhaps 10 years.

Chuckle. I'm still using my 1988 or so Northgate (back when they were an
actual company, not a Pacific rim brand name) Omnikey keyboard. Yeah, it
cost me over a hundred bucks back then, but it has paid for itself several
times over. (I'm on like my 5th or 6th PC since then, of course.)When the
real Northgate went belly up, I understand somebody else bought the keyboard
line, and was selling them under another brand for awhile. No idea if they
still exist. I also have a crate of Zenith z248 keyboard, which use the same
mechanical Alps key mechanisms. (From when Zenith was still a real company,
of course.)

Luddite and proud of it.

aem sends....


Hey, I still have an IBM Model "M" 101 "clicky" from the original PS/2
line. Has some weight to it and won't slide around while typing (which
the main thing I hate about those modern "cheapies"). Also, a Microsoft
optical mouse which is about 8 or 9 years old and still going strong.

lsmartino wrote:
Rod Speed ha escrito:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote
What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.
Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.
Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.
I totally disagree.
Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.
Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.


Sorry but you are missinformed. Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

I was assuming he was referring to rechargeable lithiums (Li-Po). But I
use those E2 lithiums in my digital camera -- they last for months!

Jeff, WB8NHV wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

In my opinon...no.

I dont believe it happens in the sense that its actually possible
to design something to fail early and still have a viable product.

And there is plenty of stuff that clearly aint anything to do
with planned obsolescence at all. Most obviously with stuff
as basic as bread knives which are all metal. Those wont
even need to be replaced when the handle gives out.

And heaps of kitchen stuff is now stainless steel, which
will last forever compared with the older tinplate crap.

I intentionally try to have older appliances, vehicles, machines
to lower repair costs and keep overall ownership cost to a
minimum.

Your thoughts?

Works fine with some things, but can bite. I just replaced
the switch in the vaccuum cleaner which is about 40 years
old. Cost peanuts and was very easy to find a new one.

The big 9¼" hand held circular saw that I built the house with
35 years ago has just seen the power switch fail and that is
no longer available from the manufacturer. Fortunately its
failed on so the saw is still usable tho more dangerous.
It uses blades with a 1?" hole. The current blades have
1" holes with washers which allow smaller shafts but no
easy way to use them on my old saw. There doesnt appear
to be any readily available source of different collets for that.

Just had the chain adjuster failed on a dirt cheap relatively
new electric chainsaw. I assumed that they wouldnt bother
to supply parts like that, but I was wrong, readily available
and in fact free. Clearly no planned obsolescence there.

And power tools are now so cheap that they are very viable
to buy even for just one job. I had to cut a copper pipe thats
buried in the ground and it costs peanuts to buy a very decent
jigsaw to cut it, just to avoid having to dig a bigger hole around
where I needed to cut it. Its been fine for other stuff since,
no evidence that its going to die any time soon. Could well get
40 years out of that too like I did with most of the power tools
that I used to build the house.

Cars in spades. I've just replaced my 35 year old car that I was
too stupid to fix the windscreen leak with which eventually
produced rust holes in the floor which wont pass our registration
check. While its possible to plate the holes, I cant be bothered,
I intended to drive that car into the ground and decided that that
had happened. No evidence that the replacement new car wont last
as long. Its certainly got more plastic, most obviously with the
bumper bars that the new one doesnt have, but that mostly due to
modern crumple zones, not due to planned obsolescence and might
save my life etc.

People were raving on about planned obsolescence when
I built the house and I've had very little that has ever needed
replacement apart from basic stuff like light bulbs and the
occassional failure of stuff like elements in the oven etc.

More below.

Irreparable damage
By Bryce Baschuk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2007

Bill Jones, after 42 years, is finally closing the
Procter Appliance Service shop in Silver Spring.

That isnt planned obsolescence, thats the fact that its a
lot cheaper to pay a very low wage asian to make you
a new one than it ever is to pay a first world monkey to
repair your existing one with all but quite trivial faults.

"You can't make a good salary to survive on the way you
could years ago," said the 61-year-old owner of the oven,
refrigerator and washer-dryer repair shop. "Everything
has changed in the appliance business."

It has indeed, but not because of planned obsolescence.

Mr. Jones recently sold his home in Laurel and is in the
process of moving to Bluffton, S.C., with his wife, Jeannette.

Sob sob.

Mr. Jones is one of the many Washington-area repairmen who have
struggled to stay afloat as residents replace, not repair, old
appliances.

Because its generally better value to replace.

"It's a dying trade," said Scott Brown, Webmaster of
www.fixitnow.com
and self-proclaimed "Samurai Appliance Repairman."

Wota ****ing ******. Bet he doesnt disembowel himself when he ****s
up.

The reason for this is twofold, Mr. Brown said: The cost
of appliances is coming down because of cheap overseas
labor and improved manufacturing techniques,

So much for your silly line about planned obsolescence.

and repairmen are literally dying off.

They arent in other industrys that are still viable,
most obviously with cars and trucks and houses.

The average age of appliance technicians is 42, and there are few
young repairmen to take their place, said Mr. Brown, 47. He has
been repairing appliances in New Hampshire for the past 13 years.

He should have had a clue 13 years ago.
The writing was on the wall long before that.

In the next seven years, the number of veteran appliance
repairmen will decrease nationwide as current workers retire
or transfer to other occupations, the Department of Labor
said in its 2007 Occupational Outlook Handbook.

Must be rocket scientist shinybums.

The federal agency said many prospective repairmen prefer work
that is less strenuous and want more comfortable working
conditions.

They actually prefer a decent income.

That claimed 'prefer work that is less strenuous and want more
comfortable working conditions' clearly hasnt affect car, truck or
house repair and the construction industry etc. Tho there will
always be some of that with a 5% unemployment rate.

Local repairmen said it is simply a question of economics.
"Nowadays appliances are cheap, so people are just getting new
ones,"

Yep, only a fool wouldnt if the new one costs about
the same as the cost of repairing the old one.

said Paul Singh, a manager at the Appliance Service Depot, a
repair shop in Northwest. "As a result, business has slowed down
a lot."

"The average repair cost for a household appliance is $50 to
$350," said Shahid Rana, a service technician at Rana
Refrigeration, a repair shop in Capitol Heights. "If the repair is
going to cost more than
that, we usually tell the customer to go out and buy a new one."

Must be rocket scientist apes.

It's not uncommon for today's repairmen to condemn an appliance
instead of fixing it for the sake of their customers' wallets.

If they decide to repair an appliance that is likely to break
down again, repairmen are criticized by their customers
and often lose business because of a damaged reputation.

Mr. Jones said he based his repair decisions on the 50 percent
rule: "If the cost of service costs more than 50 percent of the
price
of a new machine, I'll tell my customers to get a new one."

What makes a lot more sense is to factor in the failure rate of
that appliance.

"A lot of customers want me to be honest with them, so I'll tell
them
my opinion and leave the decision making up to them," he said.

In recent years, consumers have tended to buy new
appliances when existing warranties expire rather than
repair old appliances, the Department of Labor said.

Hardly surprising given that they are now so cheap.

Mr. Brown acknowledged this trend. "Lower-end appliances which you
can buy for $200 to $300 are basically throwaway appliances," he
said. "They are so inexpensive that you shouldn't pay to get them
repaired." "The quality of the materials that are being made
aren't lasting,"

Pig ignorant silly stuff.

Mr. Jones said. "Nowadays you're seeing more plastic

I had some reservations about my 35 year old
dishwasher that does have a plastic liner. Its lasted fine.

and more circuit boards, and they aren't holding up."

Bull****.

Many home appliances sold in the United States
are made in Taiwan, Singapore, China and Mexico.

And now china.

"Nothing is made [in the United States] anymore," Mr. Jones said.
"But then again, American parts are only better to a point,
a lot of U.S. companies are all about the dollar."

Fortunately for the next generation of repairmen, some of today's
high-end appliances make service repairs the most cost-effective
option.

The Department of Labor concurred. "Over the next decade, as more
consumers purchase higher-priced appliances designed to have much
longer lives, they will be more likely to use repair services than
to purchase new appliances," said the 2007 Occupational Outlook
Handbook.

Bet that will have **** all effect on the employment prospects.

Modern, energy-efficient refrigerators
can cost as much as $5,000 to $10,000,

Pig ignorant drivel. You can buy plenty of modern energy efficient
fridges for a hell of a lot less than that. I've done just that a
month ago.

and with such a hefty price tag, throwing one away is not an
option.

Bet the fools stupid enough to buy those will anyway.

In some cases, repairmen can help consumers reduce the
amount of aggravation that a broken appliance will cause.

Consider the time and effort it takes to shop for a new appliance,
wait for its delivery, remove the old one and get the new one
installed.

I did mine in 30 mins total, literally.

In addition, certain appliances such as ovens and
washing machines can be a bigger hassle to replace
because they are connected to gas and water lines.

Just changed washing machines over too, with a free
one I inherited. Changing the water over took minutes too.

"It takes your time, it takes your effort, and if you don't
install the new appliance, you'll have to hire a service
technician to install it anyways," Mr. Brown said.

Only the incompetant fools that cant change the washing machine
over.

Some consumers bond with their appliances like old pets,
and for loyalty or sentimental reasons, refuse to let them go.

Mr. Rana said some of his clients have appliances that are
more than 30 years old. It makes sense, he said. "A lot of old
refrigerators are worth fixing because they give people good
service.

Wrong, those are normally lousy energy efficiency.

They just don't make things like they used to."

Yeah, they make them much better today energy efficiency wise.

And much better design wise too with the shelves and bins etc too.

did you know theres all qualitys of stainless, some will last
literaLLY FOREVER

Yep, and all of my kitchen stainless will do that fine.

not so for kitchen stainless,

Wrong.

try a magnet on stainless the better quality is non magnetic

The magnetic stuff will last fine too with that use.

I have an Aiwa bookshelf stereo system which I bought new seven
years ago. One of the cassette decks developed a problem recently,
so I took it to a local repair shop. Left it there over a weekend, then
went back today to pick it up--unrepaired. One of the technicians told
me I had made a wise decision not to have it repaired because the
thing is so old (he also cited NLA--no longer available--parts for the
cassette deck and other parts of the system). I figured this way.
I have most of my CDs stored on my computer, which is hooked up
to the stereo (sounds much better than the stock speakers), and use
Winamp (v5.32) to listen to them. All I'm really using the stereo for
now is as an amplifier,

Yeah, I do too.

so why should I spend more money than the system is probably
worth to have the cassette decks repaired? As it is, one deck
will work but sometimes jams; I can clear the problem in seconds
--the thing works perfectly once started.

I gave up on cassettes decades ago, basically when CDs showed up.

(I can always connect a Panasonic boombox with cassette deck
into my system if the one remaining deck quits altogether, so I'm
not concerned about it in the least.) The CD player still works great,

I gave up on that too, prefer mp3s now.

as does the AM/FM digital tuner.

Havent bothered with that in decades either.

As long as the amplifiers work, I won't put any more money into the
system. Even if the amps do go belly-up eventually, by that time the
entire stereo will probably be so old it won't be worth fixing, period.

Yeah, I blew the **** out of the speakers a decade or more
ago and havent bothered to replace just the speakers yet.

Then and only then will I consider getting a new one.
I've looked at some of the newest USB stereos from
Aiwa on their website (model BMZ-K1/BMZ-K2), and
these don't even have one cassette deck, let alone two.

Cassette decks are WAY past their useby date.

The world's moved on forever.

I think Aiwa, at least, is realizing that cassettes are all but obsolete.

So is everyone else.

Just watch. Some day Aiwa, and every other manufacturer of compact
audio systems, will design their very newest systems to download mp3
files from the Internet exclusively, perhaps with no CD players at all

Likely, but not necessary from the net, there'll still be local storage.

Even ipods do it that way.

(the BMZ-K1/K2 systems have slot-in 5-CD changers).
The BMZ-K1/K2 systems, with USB ports, are the new
generation of compact digital audio systems which have
no cassette decks--and the new ones are getting more
sophisticated all the time.

Yep, in spades with ipods etc.

(Other manufacturers are sure to follow
suit shortly if they haven't done so by now.)

Been around for a long time now, most obviously with ipods etc.

These -will- render today's digital and analog bookshelf
systems obsolete in no time, if they haven't already.

They have already, most obviously with ipods and media players.

Would you recommend a particular commercial vacuum cleaner?

He sold me a simple upright Panasonic with no extra bells and whistles but and
was not a commercial model. He said I can expect 10 years of service from this one.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
And with it is the age of artificially cheap electronics...

Hmm, I thought they were genuinely cheap...LOL.

Please pay attention to your posting style. I don't care whether you top
post, bottom post or embed posts, but you could trim to make them easier to
read. Trying to dig out a few lines from several pages of drivell makes it
very hard to follow a thread. Also, the cross posting is likely not
necessary. If you read all of those groups and a comment make sense in the
context of the discussion in that group, then fine. It is rarely necessary
to contimue cross posting and rare that a comment make sense in all of the
groups at the same time, however.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 21740 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:%usrh.19753$wq.17281@trndny07...

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

That must be why they are going from country to country dumping toxic
waste until they get chased out.

Or why they have been forced to go to lead free solder.

The free ride the electronics industry has been getting is coming to an
end.

And with it is the age of artificially cheap electronics...

TMT

There is a plant being built in Florida just to recycle electronic parts.
It is becoming profitable on some level. There is certainly enough "raw
material" to be had.

Where is this plant, who runs it, has it been completed or is it being
built, and what does "profitable on some level" actually mean? Recycling
has been pursued at many levels for some time, but I am curious to know if
someone is actually making a profit at it and what level of recycling is
going on. What are the byproducts and environmental costs of the recycling?
The idea of recycling is a good thing, but the reality of it is that it is
very difficult to make it work in a profitable and environmentally friendly
manner in many cases. Can we have some more info or did you just get a
whiff of something?

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 21740 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our area)
to be "severe service".

You may consider it severe, but the manufacturer doesn't. There is no
evidence that doing twice as many oil changes as the manufacturer
recommends has any effect on engine life. It doesn't really hurt
anything to change the oil at 3000 miles, or 1000 miles for that matter,
but all the independent tests of engine wear versus oil change interval
have proved that there is no advantage to following the severe service
interval for non-severe service.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I got one of those for free because the motor controller had failed and
the repair was supposed to cost $400.


The Neputune washer is a typical case of how companies plan for
enforced obscelence.

Make the repair cost so high that you are forced to buy another
appliance.

Their mistake is that many of the problems surfaced during the warranty
period.

Their other mistake was to outsource much of the design to consultants
who took their money and ran leaving the company with a poor design
that was rushed to production.

The CEO and MBAs still got their bonuses as the company sank.

IMHO... the problem with the Neptune (and similarly high-priced
"unique" product lines from other companies) is that as far as I could
tell there was nothing standard about ANY part of it.

I mean, if a knob falls off my stove, I know I can go to the appliance
part store and get a new knob that'll fit (might not be right color
but...). Or if a element fails in the oven. etc.

With the Neptune it seemed to be a design goal to make every part
completely non-generic. And then charge a lot for the whole thing as if
it were some really premium "high-end" appliance. They set the bar
really really high and then guaranteed they'd never live up to it!

Tim.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:02:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
SMS wrote
Alan wrote
SMS wrote
Mark Jerde wrote

Your thoughts?

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.

Nah, the drugstores all had self-service tube testers and sold
tubes. You opened your TV, put a little numbered sticker on each
tube and on each socket, and took the tubes down and tested them.
They had a little pamphlet that let you match up the symptom to
the proper tube if you didn't want to take out all the tubes.

- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a
"Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant*
service.) - 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

This is true. Amusingly, you still have some car owners that
believe that they need to change their oil every 3000 miles,
just like back in the days of non-detergent motor oils.

Especially since normal city driving is, according
to your owner's manual "extreme service" and they
recommend you change your oil every 3,000 miles. . . .

First of all, many car makers are using 5000 miles for extreme
service, and 7500 for normal service. Some have service indicators
that take into account actual driving and environmental factors in
determining the proper oil change interval. Often the shorter
intervals are to compensate for poorly designed engines that burn a
lot of oil, so the manufacturer can claim that the vehicle burns no
oil between changes.

Second, normal city driving is rarely considered "extreme" service.
Extreme service is more than just stop and go driving, it's all stop
and go driving and short trips, it's driving in extreme heat, or in
very dusty areas. There's a big effort by the oil change industry to
convince owners that almost everyone falls into severe or extreme
service. It's resulted in a lot of "recreational oil changes" that
do nothing to lengthen the service life of the engine.

For Toyota:

* Driving on rough, muddy or snow-melted roads.
* Driving on dusty roads.
* Towing trailers, caravans or boats.
* Repeated short trips (less than 8 km) in freezing conditions.
* Extensive idling and or low speed driving for long distance such as taxis, couriers, etc.
* Continuous high speed driving (80% or more at maximum vehicle speed) for over 2 hours.

For Ford
* Towing a trailer or using a camper or car-top carrier
* Extensive idling and/or low-speed driving for long distances as in
heavy commercial use such as delivery, taxi, patrol car or livery
* Operating in dusty conditions such as unpaved or dusty roads
* Off-road operation
* Use of E85 50% of the time or greater (flex fuel vehicles only)

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our area)
to be "severe service".. For my vehicles, and the vast majority of my
customers' vehicles while I was service manager, this was the case.
Trated as such, virtually non of my customers' cars had any problems
that could remotely be attributed to poor lubrication.

You have no way of quantifying what would have happened
if they hadnt got 'severe service' oil change rates.

Can't say that for all those who argued the point and stuck to the "normal
conditions" schedule. Some got lucky, but certainly not the majority.

Bull****.

Actually, I do. I serviced over 600 vehicles anually on a regular
basis. ONLY the ones that did not follow the recommended "severe"
schedule had any problems - period. There were NO other common
conditions that were not met. A large enough sample, over 10 years, to
be significant and more or less reliable.
I also serviced hundreds more per year on a not so regular basis.
In TEN years I NEVER had a vehicle maintained to my recommendations
suffer a lubrication related engine failure.Not even a camshaft or a
timing chain, and some of these vehicles went over 300,000km.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:07:44 -0800, SMS
wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our area)
to be "severe service".

You may consider it severe, but the manufacturer doesn't. There is no
evidence that doing twice as many oil changes as the manufacturer
recommends has any effect on engine life. It doesn't really hurt
anything to change the oil at 3000 miles, or 1000 miles for that matter,
but all the independent tests of engine wear versus oil change interval
have proved that there is no advantage to following the severe service
interval for non-severe service.


I'll agree under "normal" service - but under extreme service it DOES
make a difference - and I know extreme service.

Also, the legendary "coking" problem on Toyotas and Chryslers is NOT
an issue if the oil is changed on the severe service schedule. Nor is
using 10W40 oil.
I will continue to follow and recommend the severe service schedule
for any vehicle that does not go 5000 km in 3 months, as well as any
that get high speed/heavy load use or drive the dirt roads of rural
Waterloo County.
I will also use 10W40 oil in these vehicles where 10W30 is
recommended, and in the summer wher 5W20 is recommended.
It will cost about half a mile per gallon in fuel economy, at worst.
It will NOT hurt the engine.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
SMS wrote
Alan wrote
SMS wrote
Mark Jerde wrote

Your thoughts?

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes
showed up.

Nah, the drugstores all had self-service tube testers and sold
tubes. You opened your TV, put a little numbered sticker on each
tube and on each socket, and took the tubes down and tested them.
They had a little pamphlet that let you match up the symptom to
the proper tube if you didn't want to take out all the tubes.

- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a
"Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed
*constant* service.) - 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more
than you could expect.

This is true. Amusingly, you still have some car owners that
believe that they need to change their oil every 3000 miles,
just like back in the days of non-detergent motor oils.

Especially since normal city driving is, according
to your owner's manual "extreme service" and they
recommend you change your oil every 3,000 miles. . . .

First of all, many car makers are using 5000 miles for extreme
service, and 7500 for normal service. Some have service indicators
that take into account actual driving and environmental factors in
determining the proper oil change interval. Often the shorter
intervals are to compensate for poorly designed engines that burn a
lot of oil, so the manufacturer can claim that the vehicle burns no
oil between changes.

Second, normal city driving is rarely considered "extreme" service.
Extreme service is more than just stop and go driving, it's all stop
and go driving and short trips, it's driving in extreme heat, or in
very dusty areas. There's a big effort by the oil change industry to
convince owners that almost everyone falls into severe or extreme
service. It's resulted in a lot of "recreational oil changes" that
do nothing to lengthen the service life of the engine.

For Toyota:

* Driving on rough, muddy or snow-melted roads.
* Driving on dusty roads.
* Towing trailers, caravans or boats.
* Repeated short trips (less than 8 km) in freezing conditions.
* Extensive idling and or low speed driving for long distance such
as taxis, couriers, etc.
* Continuous high speed driving (80% or more at maximum vehicle
speed) for over 2 hours.

For Ford
* Towing a trailer or using a camper or car-top carrier
* Extensive idling and/or low-speed driving for long distances as
in
heavy commercial use such as delivery, taxi, patrol car or livery
* Operating in dusty conditions such as unpaved or dusty roads
* Off-road operation
* Use of E85 50% of the time or greater (flex fuel vehicles only)

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our area)
to be "severe service".. For my vehicles, and the vast majority of
my customers' vehicles while I was service manager, this was the
case. Trated as such, virtually non of my customers' cars had any
problems that could remotely be attributed to poor lubrication.

You have no way of quantifying what would have happened
if they hadnt got 'severe service' oil change rates.

Can't say that for all those who argued the point and stuck to the
"normal conditions" schedule. Some got lucky, but certainly not the majority.

Bull****.

Actually, I do.

Actually, you dont.

I serviced over 600 vehicles anually on a regular basis.

And when so few of those would have had problems that
could ever be attributed to the failure of the engine oil, the
technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

ONLY the ones that did not follow the recommended
"severe" schedule had any problems - period.

You aint established that that was anything other than a coincidence.

There were NO other common conditions that were not met. A large
enough sample, over 10 years, to be significant and more or less reliable.

Pigs arse it is.

I also serviced hundreds more per year on a not so regular basis.
In TEN years I NEVER had a vehicle maintained to my recommendations
suffer a lubrication related engine failure.Not even a camshaft or a
timing chain, and some of these vehicles went over 300,000km.

Pity that hordes get the same result with the non severe service oil change rate too.

The car manufacturers wouldnt be stipulating the lower change
rate if it wasnt viable, there is no incentive for them to do that.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:07:44 -0800, SMS
wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

I consider about 75-80% of in-town driving (and in-region in our
area) to be "severe service".

You may consider it severe, but the manufacturer doesn't. There is no
evidence that doing twice as many oil changes as the manufacturer
recommends has any effect on engine life. It doesn't really hurt
anything to change the oil at 3000 miles, or 1000 miles for that
matter, but all the independent tests of engine wear versus oil
change interval have proved that there is no advantage to following
the severe service interval for non-severe service.


I'll agree under "normal" service - but under extreme service it DOES
make a difference - and I know extreme service.

Also, the legendary "coking" problem on Toyotas and Chryslers is NOT
an issue if the oil is changed on the severe service schedule. Nor is
using 10W40 oil.
I will continue to follow and recommend the severe service schedule
for any vehicle that does not go 5000 km in 3 months, as well as any
that get high speed/heavy load use or drive the dirt roads of rural
Waterloo County.
I will also use 10W40 oil in these vehicles where 10W30 is
recommended, and in the summer wher 5W20 is recommended.
It will cost about half a mile per gallon in fuel economy, at worst.
It will NOT hurt the engine.

Yeah, yeah, you know it all, the manufacturers know nothing.

Yeah, right.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:34:38 -0500, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:



Also, the legendary "coking" problem on Toyotas and Chryslers is NOT
an issue if the oil is changed on the severe service schedule. Nor is
using 10W40 oil.

Not many people are aware of the Toyota problem, which I believe
was due to insufficient oil passage size to properly drain oil down
from the heads.
In that case it is obvious that more frequent oil changes would reduce
clogging of passages due to oil residue deposits, but that's no
argument for more frequent changes in general. Especially since the
coking problem was most likely caused by owners not even doing timely
"normal" frequency oil changes.
IMO, frequent oil changes are just cheap insurance against premature
wear. I'm tending more toward Steve's position lately as it becomes
evident that metallurgy and oil formulation improvements
lessen the need for frequent oil changes.
But I'm not there yet, and still use 3k miles as my measure.

--Vic